Hi Sergey, On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > How can your approach -- which relies *very much* on having the > >> > original parent commits -- not *require* that consistency check? > >> > >> I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Could you please point me to > >> the *require* you talk about in the original proposal? > > > > Imagine a todo list that contains this line > > > > merge -C abcdef 123456 > > > > and now the user edits it (this is an interactive rebase, after all), > > adding another merge head: > > > > merge -C abcdef 987654 123456 > > > > Now your strategy would have a serious problem: to find the original > > version of 987654. If there was one. > > We are talking about different checks then. My method has a built-in > check that Pillip's one doesn't. Since you did not bother to elaborate, I have to assume that your "built-in check" is that thing where intermediate merges can give you conflicts? If so, there is a possibility in Phillip's method for such conflicts, too: we have to perform as many 3-way merges as there are parent commits. It does make me uncomfortable to have to speculate what you meant, though. > >> > What would your approach (that still has no satisfyingly trivial > >> > explanation, in my mind) > >> > >> Here is one-liner: rebase sides of the merge commit and then 3-way > >> merge them, using original merge commit as merge base. > > > > But I already pointed out how that would undo a commit having been > > dropped. > > No. Not for this version. You did it for originally flawed version of > the method, that has been already fixed by addition of "using original > merge commit as merge base" in the above sentence, and that was the > exact reason for [RFC v2], that in turn is explicitly stated at the > beginning of [RFC v2]. Since there is no "interdiff" between your versions, it is unreasonably hard to deduce this, and since you seem to be unwilling to explain... I'll just leave it at that. Ciao, Johannes
